About your Search

20121128
20121128
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)
of a gripping, terrifying spy novel. you got a bioweapons scientist and covert cia officer who is working on developing all sorts of biological weapons that are used in extreme interrogations. some of those interrogations with the bioweapons result in death. and the cia, what does it do about this? the agent who is involved and apparently who has a discomfort with what he's been doing gets his drinks spiked against the cia. it is an extremely convoluted, intriguing case and as you well outlined but is extremely convoluted. it's ten years old, the kennedy assassination and many if not a all -- >> that is my next question. since it is so old, a number of witnesses they would need, some of his fellow officers now in their 20s or 30s would be in their 70s or 80s. not only could they be dead but their minds are certainly not what they used to be which is always a problem in an old case that comes to court after decades. but in this particular case, just getting evidence, you're talking about getting evidence from the cia. >> well the family is having an extremely difficult time getting evidenc
. thank you for staying with us for this hour. the acting director of the cia met for more than an hour with senators john mccain and lindsey graham along with the u.n. ambassador susan rice. the three senators emerged from the meeting saying they were honored by the fact that the cia director would meet with them, just three random senators and not in some official capacity testifying before committee on the hill. they appreciated the fact that the administration and the intelligence community was going to such lengths to e swaj their concerns to personally answer their questions about the libya attack in a closed-door meeting with the cia director himself, even though these are just three random senators. the senators said their questions were answered as reasonably could be expected and they were willing to consider the president's nominee for secretary of state. they were tlog hear out those nominations fairly and without prejudice. yeah right. that's not the way it went. here's actually what happened after that meeting today. >> we're not going to consider this nomination until we
back open. following a meeting with acting c.i.a. director michael morrell and u.n. ambassador susan rice who has become the focal point of the event. they emerged with their talking points unified and intact. >> we're significantly troubled by many of the answers that we got and some that we didn't get. >> i'm more troubled today knowing, having met with the acting director of the c.i.a. and ambassador rice. >> bottom line, i'm more disturbed now than i was before. >> eliot: for her part, ambassador rice released a statement shortly after the meeting reiterating her defense. i quote "we stressed that neither i nor anyone else in the administration intended to mislead the american people at any stage in this process and the administration updated congress and the american people as our assessments evolved." joining us now is abc white house correspondent jake tapper, the author of the much lauded new book "the outpost." first, i want to ask you about benghazi gate. honestly die understand what the senators continue to
is that the consulate in benghazi was not an embassy of any typical kind. it really looks like a cia listening station. the kind of security arrangements that were in place were inadequate but it wasn't an embassy. when you build an embassy, there's a formal process about the kinds of materials you use and the setback from the street and the kinds of security measures in place. benghazi, you know, didn't rise to that and as a sort of -- so, you know, there's sort of apples and oranges. but the fact is she's introduced a new line of criticism against ambassador rice. >> do you think it's relevant, peter -- do you think it's relevant the question that susan collins is now raising as part of, let's say the president did say, i want susan rice as my secretary of state, they have the process, they go before and the senators consider her, do you think it's legitimate, this issue that she's brought up now? >> well, a, it was 14 years ago. b, al qaeda unfortunately wasn't deemed to be a significant threat and, c, it's not even clear that she, you know, was in any way responsible for the lack of, you know, mov
cia director has some serious problems as well. president obama pulls out all the stops to keep middle class taxes low, but will congress go along with higher taxes for the rich? plus, a long secret u.s. plan, get this, to explode an atomic bomb on the moon. what were they thinking? i'm wolf blitzer. you're in "the situation room." >>> today we may be at the tipping point for one of the most important decisions president obama needs to make as he begins his second term. on capitol hill republicans including moderate republicans are sending the president a clear warning, don't nominate susan rice to replace hillary clinton as secretary of state. rice is the current u.s. ambassador to the united nations. she spent a second day meeting with senators trying to explain some of her inaccurate comments she made after the september 11th terrorist attack on the u.s. consulate in benghazi, libya. cnn's senior congressional correspondent dana bash is joining us now from capitol hill with the very latest. what happened today, dana? >> reporter: wolf, it was one thing for susan rice to be criticize
the unclassified version of the report she was given by the cia? then that would have been criticized. >> you're unfit because you're imparting secrets. >> exactly. >> rice was able to win over someone, joe lieberman. take a listen. >> i would not feel that her appearances and anything she said on those sunday morning talk shows september 16th would disqualify her for appointment to any other office. >> leishman in the context, he's retiring, he's not going to be around to vote on this. but is he signaling for other democrats basically that she has a clear path if her name does come up for nomination? >> i think that's right. joe lieberman is conservative, a hawk, respected by some senators on foreign policy issues. there may be three republican senators who don't like her, another 97 who have votes, the house members who have been campaigning against her don't have votes. something chip said, it would be weird or odd for this process to be playing out if she is not going to be nominated as secretary of state. chip, it shows i think a real political premise on your part, and i think unfortuna
debate. so why aren't they saying, we need more information about the cia? we need to know where was the intelligence failure on the part of cia. that seems to me a very reasonable question as opposed to holding responsible she who went on and repeated what those talking points were saying. >> erin, let me bring you in on this. you heard michael, a laundry list of things they could be asking regarding the investigation but you have susan collins and john mccain willing to endorse john kerry. that may be their sincere and honest opinion but why not answer i'm focused on benghazi and the investigation and not potential nominees for secretary of state, both eager to say they would support john kerry. why? >> well, look. republicans are still looking to punish the administration over benghazi. we know that. republicans think that president obama got a pass on benghazi during the election so there's some of that but one thing i would point out to you from senator collins' remarks is that she is still looking for answers from susan rice about a time in 1998 when she was in charge of th
by the director of the cia, i think it wouldn't be fair to disqualify her based on what she said. >> ambassador rice released this statement after meeting with the republican senators. while we certainly wish we had >> ambassador rice released this statement after meeting with the republican senators. joining me now, msnbc's karen finney and howard fineman. howard, what is your understanding of how these meetings actually went today? we got a very little by way of actual reports on what went on there. you've got lindsey graham trying to say something happened in this meeting to make the situation worse. what could that have been? >> well, from talking to a top official in the white house and to senator mccain, behind closed doors, the meeting wasn't as contentious as those statements after ward made it sound. at least as regard to ambassador rice. i think both sides agree that there are legitimate questions to be asked about the timeline of what happened in benghazi. about the state of knowledge at the time, about security protections and so forth, but as far as holding ambassador rice personal
. then they put out a statement the essence of it seems to be that acting c.i.a. director michael morrell said that the talking points have been changed by the fbi because of an on-going criminal investigation. and they were very troubled by this because of course we had already been told it was the dni that changed them. then they got a call at 4:00 p.m. from the c.i.a., actually, no it wasn't. it was us. we changed them. so then they're going what the bleep is going on? they can't get their act straight. and yet the focus of their rage when they came out from the meeting was susan rice, not michael morrell. >> bill: right. so susan rice, first of all not responsible for security at consulates or embassies around the country. number two, she's not the one who wrote those intelligence reports or provided the material for the intelligence report that she -- the findings of which she simply read or reported on. if the anger should be directed toward anybody it should be against the c.i.a. or the fbi or whoever did not have all o
with the director of the cia and ambassador rice because it's essential clear from the beginning that we knew that those with ties to al qaeda were involved in the attack on the embassy. >> i specifically asked her whether at any point prior to going on the sunday morning television show, she was briefed or... urged to say certain things by anybody in the white house, relate to the campaign or political operations. she said, no, she was not given messaging points at all by the white house, prior to her appearance on those sunday morning shows. >> it is clear that the informs that she gave the american people was incorrect when she said that it was a spontaneous demonstration ib spired by a hateful video. it was not. and there was compelling evidence at the time that that was certainly not the case. >> bottom line, i am more disturbed now than i was before the 16th september... explanation about how four americans died in benghazi, libya, by ambassador rice. i think it does not do justice to the reality at the time and in hindsight, clearly was completely wrong. >> there are no unanswered ques
director of the cia said that the information about the reaction to the video and the protest was wrong and that no one corrected it, including ambassador rice, even though she had left that impression on every single network, op every sunday show. that left me very concerned about that as well. >> did she say to you that she had reviewed intelligence specifically about benghazi, that had the additional information? she couldn't say so publicly. had she reviewed that intelligence? did she affirm that to you or are you assuming that she had? >> she did review it. >> so, in other words, she knew better than what you're saying that she knew better? >> yes. that's one of the questions i have and one of the questions that i didn't feel i got a satisfactory answer to, which is if you knew that even though the classified version, obviously, had references to al qaeda in it being involved or individuals with ties to al qaeda involved in it, how could you not know when you go on every sunday show and not include that fact that it would leave a very different impression to the american people, pa
to get answers from the fbi and the cia and the intelligence committee and all of those other things, we have to go through susan rice. before we can work on preventing this from happening again, we have to agree on what exactly happened. and we don't fully know and we need to find out. >> i appreciate a lot of your position. if this was really about consulate security and what happened that day for a lot of these people, i would find that extremely valid. these are important questions. nobody wants this to happen again. it is completely a tragedy. but what we have is talking point police attacking susan rice because of what she said on the shows. look. they -- all these senators know the intelligence that she got. they know she was briefed by the intelligence community to say this. they know there's no duplicity. she was told what to say and whatnot to say. there's this bizarre kabuki theaters a foekt this. if it's above politics, it's attacking obama and the intelligence community. susan rice is not the doorway in to that. obama who stood up and said i'm where the buck stops. attack me
that caused a problem. it was the acting cia director michael murrell who went with her to this meeting with the three republican senators, told them that it was actually the fbi that changed the unclassified talking points that susan rice used and then really made them mad about that. then hours later called back and said, never mind. we were wrong. so they didn't even -- he didn't even have his facts right in that meeting, which really adds fuel to the fire here. >> okay. and not picking on susan rice but i have to lay this by you. i mean, isn't it part rice's personality the editor at large of foreign policy magazine describes rice this way, quote, she's not easy. i'm not sure i'd want to take her on a picnic with my family, but if the president wants her to be secretary of state, she'll work hard. this is from a reuters article. so is it in part that senators aren't used to dealing with a person -- i mean, susan rice just comes out and kind of says things. she's blunt. she's not charming, warm, etcetera. >> or maybe some might say diplomatic which you need for the role of secretary
Search Results 0 to 17 of about 18 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (31 Dec 2014)